AXA Alternative accommodation only for the better off

norwichmanneil

Three years ago today a water main burst in the road which washed away the foundations to the front and side of my house. By evening the house was unsafe and I had to get out leaving everything in the house. I went to my Sisters for Christmas and rang AXA to arrange accommodation on the 26th. I was told there was no one in the office till the New Year and so temporary I went to a B&B very near my house. My loss adjusters were Crawford and accommodation specialists were Countrywide. I was told it should only take a few days to find alternative accommodation. At that time (Jan 2011) there were very few furnished properties in Norwich to be found. When I did find one (nearly 3 months later) everything was going fine until it was pointed out that I did not earn enough to rent the properties. Countrywide and AXA could not help in this matter. I used my savings to pay up front 6 months rent so I could move out of a one bed B&B. How much you earn should have anything to do with the provision of alternate accommodation. Not much had changed 9 months later (old house still standing), I was given notice to leave my alternate accommodation so Christmas 2011 was spent desperately looking for more accommodation. Countrywide were looking for short term lets so much time was wasted. More time was wasted on a property which fell through because I did not earn enough. With 5 days to go to both Christmas and homelessness I arranged a property by paying 6 months rent in advance. I have been in this property for 2 years.

Spikey1

I've never heard anything like that before.


If you earn enough to pay your insurance premiums then you earn enough to gain the benefit of the policy cover.....which will include the costs of alternative accommodation. The insurer should pay this for you......I can't believe that you are being asked to cough up the cash yourself !!


Have you escalated complaints about this ?....what was the outcome.....are FOS involved ?

InsideInsurance

Spikey1 wrote: »

I've never heard anything like that before.


If you earn enough to pay your insurance premiums then you earn enough to gain the benefit of the policy cover.....which will include the costs of alternative accommodation. The insurer should pay this for you......I can't believe that you are being asked to cough up the cash yourself !!


Have you escalated complaints about this ?....what was the outcome.....are FOS involved ?

I suspect the chain is the issue. The insured is the one party to the contract with the landlord. The insured pays the rent and the insurer repays the insured.

From the landlord's perspective there is no guarantee the insured will actually pay, no guarantee that the claim will be accepted by the insurer, no knowledge of the landlord over how long the alternative accommodation is covered for under the terms of the policy, no guarantee the insured will want to/ will leave at the end of the insurance cover (esp if their own home isnt ready any yet).

Thus the landlord wants to ensure that their prospective tenant can actually afford the rent should something go wrong and it is standard practice to ask for 6 months up front rent should they fail affordability/ credit checking.

As to the availability of suitable property, clearly that isnt the fault of the insurer.

The insurer could possibly help by giving a guarantee to the Landlord for X months but that creates a potentially bureaucratic headach

vaio

either the insurer should be arranging the alternative accommodation direct with the landlord or they should be doing an interim payment every month to cover the rent.

any claim going on for three years is just ridiculous

norwichmanneil

Thanks to everyone for their time in replying to these posts. I will reply in more detail and I wish everyone a Happy Christmas.

Neil

Spikey1

Absolutely correct Vaio,


Countrywide should organise the rental contract....the contracting parties being the customer and the Landlord. The Insurer pays the costs, via Countrywide. As for the deposit, this is usually to be paid by the customer (after all, why should the Insurers have to pay a 'penalty' if the property is mistreated). However, if the customer cannot raise the deposit then the Insurer would pay this but just keep a 'retainer' on the other parts of the claim (ie. the Buildings or Contents claim).


I'm staggered by both threads of this unfolding story.....its things like this which can give the industry a bad name.


It will be interesting whether the OP has any further info for us to consider. I just can't imagine any Insurer in this day and age getting something so wrong.....maybe there is another angle which we are not seeing yet.